Dear Senator,

If you were to question U.S. citizens about what an electoral college is, what would they say? Most of them don't even know its a process established in the Constitution in which electors "vote for president and vice president," and then are counted by the Congress (Source 1, paragraph 1). They don't realize that their votes can be over-riden by these votes. And those, if the very few, who do get it, are opposed. They would prefer another system, a more modernized system, and are disgruntle about how unfair the system is, not only about how the electors are chosen but how the larger states have an advantage in votes and in information.

Most voters are opposed to such systems, according to Source Two, "... over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now," (paragraph 9). Yet we still have the Electoral Colleges going. As active voters in todays society, we call for a fair system. We want, no, we need, to be treated fairly and not over-riden.

We need a system us as people can control ourselves. As in Source Two, I will ask you the question, "Who picks the electors in the first place?" Certainly not the citizens as a whole, most of the time its picked by the state governement in some shape or form, but sometimes, even the presidental candidates themselves can pick them (paaragraph 10)! As well as in Source Three, where its clearly pointed out that "... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people," (paragraph 15). It's outragous how easily they can pull the wool over our eyes, and even worse how we let them. But no more.

As you probably already know, each state's "...entitled allotment of electors equals the number of memebers in its Congressional delegation..." (Source One, paragraph 3). Most represntatives spend most of their time campaining in places like New York and California that the small states such as Rhode Island arent even visited. "In the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see candidates at all..." and that campaign was refered to as a "fiasco" in which the Electoral College caused a dispute (Selection 2, paragraph 13).  This leaves the smaller states less informed and more likely to vote to the exact opposite of what they want, and yet they still have as much say in the vote. In Selection Three, it is said that the swing states (or larger ones) "... are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most information and attention from the candidates)," (paragraph 20).

Selection Two points out something very important that should be stressed, "... each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 5000,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 represantatives from California, who represnt 35 million votes," (paragraph 12). This shows the citizens aren't really being represented properly.

Altough many downfalls, "The Electorial College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states... lose" and "avoids the problem of elections in which no one recieves a majority of the votes cast,"(Source Three, paragragh 21 and 22). Yet still there can be holes poked in that, and all though unlikely, theres an even amount of votes so the vote could be split 50/50. Just imagine the chaos we could be thrown into.

Therefor, as a concerned citizen speaking as the voice of others, we demand a better system, for a simplerly system, for an equal system, for a system we can control ourselves. We demand for a direct system! So I ask, please, for you to speak to your friends, and speak out for your people, and put an end to the Electorial Colleges.

Sincerly,

A concerned citizen.    